Inheritance Act claim by nephew successful despite being made pre-grant of probate

The background to Antonio v Williams & Another [2022]

Sharon McBean (the Deceased) died in February 2016, making her Will just one day beforehand. The claim against her estate was brought by her nephew, Ryan, on the basis of her Will failing to make reasonable financial provision for his maintenance.

The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act) 1975 is a statutory mechanism which provides for certain categories of persons to request the Court amend the provisions of a Will or on intestacy where the Will or intestacy fails to make reasonable financial provision.

In the current case, Ryan lived with the Deceased, who had looked after and financially maintained him for practically all his life until she died, acting as a surrogate parent. Although his father was apparently present to some extent, to all intents and purposes the Deceased treated Ryan as if he were her own son. Due to his father’s financial position and other circumstances, the Deceased materially contributed to most of Ryan’s everyday needs, practically and financially. In her Will she even refers to the start in life that she gave Ryan.

The Deceased’s Will did not actively disinherit Ryan, and did in fact leave him a share of her residuary estate (the remainder after all debts, taxes and other gifts made by the Will) – but as the majority of said estate comprised three jointly-owned properties that passed automatically by survivorship to their respective co-owners, with little to no money remaining besides, there was in effect no provision for Ryan.

The Deceased co-owned two properties with her biological son, Jamaal (including a rental property at 8a Voce Road, London), and one with her mother, Enid, who became the respective sole owners of those properties on her death.

The Decision

Award

Ryan’s claim succeeded and he was awarded £50,000. This, the Judge said, was a reasonable sum to maintain Ryan in what he called a relatively early stage of life, until he would be realistically expected to be earning his own income.

Jamaal was also ordered to pay 70% of Ryan’s court costs – reduced by 30% to account for Ryan not having proved certain points at trial that had taken up a significant amount of the hearing’s time.

Considerations

It was difficult, the Judge conceded, to predict what later life might look like for Ryan at this stage.

Further, the Judge considered that the Deceased’s Will had attempted to provide for Ryan via a share in one of the properties that had in fact passed to Jamaal. So, to facilitate the £50,000 cash award, the Judge ordered that the share in 8a Voce Road be treated as still part of the Deceased’s estate – not as an asset now owned solely by Jamaal. Courts can, under section 9 of the 75 Act, treat joint property passing by survivorship (a ‘severable’ share) as part of their net estate for the purposes of these types of claims. The 8 Voce Road property was deemed by the court, the most appropriate of the three the Deceased owned – the other two were respectively Jamaal’s and Enid’s homes.

Claim allowed pre-grant of representation

An interesting feature of the Claim was that Judgment was given despite the fact that the Claim had been issued before a grant of probate had been obtained. Jamaal had in fact obtained letters of administration, on the basis that the Deceased died intestate. However, this was erroneous as the Deceased had left a valid Will. The Judge therefore set aside the Letters of Administration during the proceedings.

Although the claim was made in the absence of a valid grant of representation, the Judge allowed the claim and indeed clarified the law on this. The Civil Procedure Rules, as they were at the time, said that an original grant must be produced to the court for a claim to be heard. However, the Judge pointed out that this was not a requirement of the Inheritance Act itself, and in any case wording in that Act (amended by the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Act 2014) said nothing prevents the making of an application before […] representation is taken out (emphasis added).

Commentary on the Inheritance Act claim

This is an interesting judgment, for a number of reasons. First It confirms the ability to bring a claim before a grant of probate has been made, removing previous ambiguity arising from the wording of the Inheritance Act conflicting with the Civil Procedure Rules.

Second, it is notable for Ryan successfully arguing that he was entitled to bring a claim pursuant to s.1(1)(d) of the Act. Interestingly, the majority of claims based on this section have involved stepchildren – for instance the (relatively) recent Gora v Treasury Solicitor [2003], where a stepdaughter claimed an estate that would otherwise have passed to the Crown due to an invalid Will. Antonio may be a useful authority as such for future claims made by those other than stepchildren.

Third, it provides useful authority on the application of s.9 of the Inheritance Act and how Court’s will treat jointly owned property that have fallen outside the Deceased’s estate due to the right of survivorship.

Contact Blake Morgan’s Contentious Trusts and Estates team if you need our advice on inheritance disputes, whether you are a beneficiary or a personal representative (executor/administrator) of an estate.